aia has tried to do what you're proposing here in the u.s. and took huge criticism from its members who did not think their dues should go toward paying for advertising. go figure.

aia is still doing it, albeit in a limited way, and primarily to a residential market. more energy now seems to be focused on lobbying for/against bills that impact the industry at large. in my mind this usually causes people to 'need' us legally, but does little to reinforce anyone's opinion of our value.

riba is probably wrestling with similar issues - promotion of the right sort would be good, but how? what? where?

i was critical of the aia, and the advertising, not because of the cost but, that it seemed the aia ads were suggesting architects with AIA after their name were more qualified than those that did not have AIA.

so, beta -- you think AIA should use member dues dollars to promote business opportunities for non-member professionals?

How does that make sense?

hmmm, quiz, your point makes the most sense. but i feel like due to the crisis in our profession these days, maybe they should promote the grand spectrum of architects. maybe, they see some crazy academia-esque unbuilt work they should advertise that niche of architecture, bring it to light and offer the group AIA membership for a year... then they should promote the ability for an architect to manage some giant project that saves and owner billions, and give them a membership, and then find some architects working in graphic design or film production, and give them an honorary membership... as a marketing tool to help people unite our profession... aaaaand for people outside the narrow spectrum of AIA architects maybe help improve and build AIA's resources... next thing you know those academia-esque parametri-heads have used some of AIA's resources to get their work built, perhaps by teaming with the open minded AE firm that saved their own billions before. ok, so that's all wishful thinking, but maybe just maybe we can clarify and substantiate ourselves.

but currently i think we have this very flawed identity. i dunno, what do you guys think?

quiz, i am not so naive that i would think that but, at the same time i do think it's a problem for an organization that is losing membership and having an equally difficult time in attracting new members, to go around and obliquely suggesting that hiring an "AIA architect" is the only way to get a qualified professional. which is exactly how i interpreted the Alison Janney commercials.

i think the AIA could and should promote the profession, and not promote the organization to people that do not ultimately reap any benefit of said organization.

While a long time, and very active, AIA member, I don't look to the AIA to promote my firm. That's my responsibility and the responsibility of my partners.

For too long, individual architects have looked to others to solve their problems. I think this has produced both a herd mentality and excruciating weakness in the ability of individual architects and individual firms to stand on their own feet and solve their own problems.

I've said what follows a lot here recently and I'll keep saying it because I believe it to be true. Every contact between an architect and a client, or a potential client, represents a selling opportunity -- an opportunity to promote the value of our creativity and the value of our services. Those contacts give us a chance to help clients, and potential clients, appreciate how we can help.

Yet, we too often assume the value we bring to the table is self-evident to people outside the profession ... it is not self-evident - that's one of the main problems we face as a profession.

Each of us must take every possible opportunity to help those less informed truly understand what we do and why our services add value to the process and their project. The contractors have done this and they are eating our lunch.

while not a long time AIA member, 2 years, but a VERY active member, i too do not look for the organization to promote my firm, nor would i want them too but, the organization is nothing without architects. so, the first mission in making inroads to the layperson, is not, and should not be to suggest - implicitly or explicitly - that only qualified person to handle their needs, is an AIA professional. the position would lead many of the uninformed several different things; first, that an AIA Assoc. could handle their project or that a non AIA professional is not qualified and/or licensed.

yeah but the contractors have a very self-evident value. i mean, they eat lunch with or without us. the fact that they can say we offer DB services, while we can only offer D puts us at a disadvantage. So they are eating two lunches. And clients may not know the benefits of having an architect or CM to protect there interests when they get involved with just a DB entity.

I guess, if our first meeting is always an educational session, it does make sense. I guess I can see us pleading our case every time we go out. But it's nothing I've been taught or has been mentioned to me at my firm.

Though, my limited experience has been dealing with long standing clients that know what they want from who.

But this is really eye opening, because I have sat down with prospective residential clients and they stare right through me when i talk. Maybe we all need to work on a concise argument/lecture on what we can do, and why we exist. Start from square one to a certain extent.

And I guess it does work that way in other professions, what does a mortgage broker do? how do they get paid? what does a realtor do? how do they get paid? as I'm going through the aches and pains of purchasing a home, it is really a learning experience. we can't expect people to fully know and understand our responsibilities too.

so quiz, give us your best pitch! I would appreciate any links to resources you find helpful.

also, when you talk about every time we have client contact its an opportunity to prove our worth. but if we don't teach it, or focus on it, are you worried that other architects out there are ruining our collective reputation? and who do we want or how can we fix it?

(refreshing thread by the way)

"clients may not know the benefits of having an architect or CM to protect there interests when they get involved with just a DB entity"


I've seen 2 sides to this argument; first theres the owners who feel that since the last architect came in 2x the budget and delayed the project over a year costing their business large sums of money, that the DB entity is the one who actually is protecting the clients' interest. However, like anything else, the popularity of DB is starting to attract the imitators who are no good at either D or B so like anything else it might come full circle - but I doubt it. I just don't see the architecture profession moving in that direction unless by force or starvation, which is a terrible position to negotiate from.

right - it's our own damn job to find markets for our services. many firms do vastly different things and it's up to the principals to figure out what kinds of work they want to do and how to sell it. It's also our job to develop new areas in which our skills can be put to use. The AIA doesn't innovate... from what I understand, professional organizations are supposed to help support and encourage us in our endeavors (by offering training, allowing us a place to network, showcasing our work, etc...) and advocate for our rights. I think once the AIA takes on the over-involved parent role (doing our homework for us), that's when we become complacent.

that only qualified person to handle their needs, is an AIA professional. the position would lead many of the uninformed several different things; first, that an AIA Assoc. could handle their project or that a non AIA professional is not qualified and/or licensed.

right - even students are confused about whether or not the AIA is the licensing body - but I wonder if this is a result of the AIA already doing too much of what you want them to do.

I haven't really had very many formal sit downs with architectural firms... but I have had a lot of contact with architectural firms regarding this.

Many of the firms I have spoke with have absolutely 0% of their budget delegated towards advertising and marketing.

Now, I have seen of firms doing indirect marketing through a variety of means (competitions, lectures et cetera). The problem with competitions and lectures is that you're essentially preaching to the choir.

The only people interested in competitions and lectures are people who are into architecture. The non-architect-types show up to these events because they have a personal fascination of discussion the nuances of FLW's stained-glass windows. While many of these things do make the press (like competition results), the general reaction gauged by "comments on the internet" is generally along the lines of "looks like Renzo Piano is having another nocturnal emission all over [insert city name]'s skyline.

Other forms of indirect marketing like massive public projects always have a negative backlash. Athen's and Beijing's Olympic complexes are two to name. China's expensive little project sits empty and vacant with the costs being considered crippling to maintain it. Events that are suppose to bring in money actually cost more money than they bring in because of the long stretches of inactivity.

And Greece, the Olympics have thrown the entire country into crippling poverty (an expense of $50,000 per person). The investment in the Olympics is so crippling that it is a major cause into Greece's financial fiasco and is deepening the recession throughout the EU. Not to mention that people have now started to squat within the Olympic complex and it is rapidly falling apart due to local residents vandalizing the complex.

So, while the AEC industry got to pat its back when these things were generating buzz... there's now hundreds of thousands of people with a deep-seated contempt over how these projects have derailed their lives.

Architects... like other design professionals... need to be more proactive with marketing to the furthest extent they can be. Every wall is potential guerrilla billboard and every park is a potential for a marketing stunt. Venues, bars and theatres are potential public relation events that allow you to connect to your customers in a comfortable informal setting. Other industry functions outside of architecture are a way for architects to learn about the business requirements and procedures who might be potential clients!

There are so many options that require little effort and little money that can provide profitable endeavors for firms. And many write these off as nonsense. They're not nonsense until you can prove they are nonsense!

good question-

a former boss of mine once said that we get work by referral for tons of trades and other professions, but rarely get work back from those folks...

i have wondered the same thing- who promotes us? not the AIA, or as noted above, so marginally its not worth joining.

you would think realtors would be a good promoter- but they promote contractors and kitchen designers and interior designers more I have noticed in my informal research.

also, making our services "necessary" is not a good way either.

i have begun my own campaign (like quizical mentioned)- promoting good design and architecture on facebook, in conversation, trying to show the regular joe what we do and why its worth it. i see some progress actually. i am having less "i didn't know what architects do" conversations, and when i do, its time to demostrate and teach and talk up what we do.
i have also started hitting local realtors to tell them a) you need to know architects, b) you need to know me- i can make you look better.

i also feel the people i work with (non-architects) know the value, at least with me and many other architects I know.

Architects in the UK cannot advertise. Its against RIBA professional conduct rules.

Architects need a reality show for some PR. That's the only way people learn about professions outside their own little bubble. I know, I know. A reality show would give the world a drama-intense skewed view on what we do. But, whatever.

I bet Bravo would do the show. They are reality show whores. The premise can be the daily drama in a small 15 person firm. There could actually be a lot of substance - design reviews, site visits, conference calls that turn into shouting matches, focusing on that one guy who does nothing and all the people who hate him, client interviews, hirings, firings, beating deadlines....

the possessive use of "architect's" is bugging me.

Either its a typo or another word has been truncated from the end like "interests". But then again then it would need to be "architects'".

So yeah, I am annoyed...perhaps only because it is the title of the thread and not within a post within the thread...

Do the memory hole with you Mr Smith.

is the RIBA also the licensing body?

Its complex toaster,

RIBA is the education body and ARB are the licencing body, as far as I can tell. Like anything else thats complex, its usually bullshit and I overlook it. Simplicity is genius.

That reality show sounds good, it would need a few typical cliche architects wearing black.

Check out Newtown on the BBC for good sataire.